Fahrenheit 9/11

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

The Guardian Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission. "I know he doesn't read," one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this.

 

Good call, Freethinker. Now THIS is something I didn't know. I have always felt that if anyone is to blame for Iraq it would be the CIA. It seemed very odd that Tenet resigned right before the commission finished its report, and this furthers my suspicion. That's one point off my list... your first valid assertion from my point of view.

 

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Or the picts of the Taliban representitives that Bush brought to Texas as Gov, to solicit business relationships with the Taliban shortly before he ran for Pres!

 

I'd really appreciate your opinions on some of the other points as well. So far you have only listed about 5 or so, and it is clear you have not read my entire list since you continue to argue the above statement. Just to refresh your memory, recall that the Taliban representatives' trip to Houston was made under the permission of the Clinton administration, and there are no accounts that Bush even met with the Taliban during this trip. If you are referring to the otherTaliban visit referred to in this movie, this delegate was brought to the US so that the administration could confront him for failures to comply with requests to isolate bin Laden.

 

I don't want to start a flame war with you, man. If you can provide evidence against what I have said, I would like to hear it! So far you have spent most of your time simply bashing the President and Republicans in general. Let's have a civilized conversation. I don't want your opinions... I still pity the President for the way the media has been giving him a hard time, and you're not going to convince me otherwise by showing me some news article that says I shouldn't. Provide me with facts.Facts are what is necessary to swing an undecided voter.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

Originally posted by: Freethinker

The Guardian Bush, in fact, does not read his President's Daily Briefs, but has them orally summarised every morning by the CIA director, George Tenet. President Clinton, by contrast, read them closely and alone, preventing any aides from interpreting what he wanted to know first-hand. He extensively marked up his PDBs, demanding action on this or that, which is almost certainly the likely reason the Bush administration withheld his memoranda from the 9/11 commission. "I know he doesn't read," one former Bush national security council staffer told me. Several other former NSC staffers corroborated this.

 

Good call, Freethinker. Now THIS is something I didn't know. I have always felt that if anyone is to blame for Iraq it would be the CIA.

Incredible, you can drag a horse to water but can't make them THINK.

I'd really appreciate your opinions on some of the other points as well. So far you have only listed about 5 or so,

1) this has NOTHING TO DO with MY OPINION.

2) it is FACTUAL information which is easily verifyable

3) I POSTED the link which validates each and every issue in an earlier post

4) you are ZERO for 5. why should I waste my time showing that you are ZERO for n?

and it is clear you have not read my entire list since you continue to argue the above statement. Just to refresh your memory, recall that the Taliban representatives' trip to Houston was made under the permission of the Clinton administration, and there are no accounts that Bush even met with the Taliban during this trip.

"made under the permission of the Clinton administration" IOW they did not outright stop it. Notice the effort to paint Clinton with the Taliban and 9/11?

 

Then there was the Idiot Child's effort to BUY a pipeline through Afganistan by funnelling $43,000,000.00 UN funds to the Taliban. Yes the Bush team arranged to fund 9/11 for the Taliban! These funds were shown to be the ones used to pay for flight school for the 9/11 pilots!

 

 

"The Nation

May 22, 2001

by Robert Scheer

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban

 

... the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime"...

 

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

 

Sadly, the Bush Administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at US insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden. "

 

But ya, it was the CIA! Ya right!

[Morpheus]

The US gave $43 million to the Taliban in the months before 9/11? I didn't know that... interesting point. What was the administration's reason/excuse for doing so? Did they give one?

[wisdumn]

oh morpheus you didn't know? that was the pre-requisite to Bush's later and probably the only nice thing he's done in office - the greattaxrebate of 2003, thetaliban's rebate was in august of 2001, they technically have to file before december where as we in america file by april but i'll be damned if those talibani's didn't file early and right in time to pay for a national tragedy in new york city- yea for the bush-whacker tax rebate, we loved it,

-sincerely, all the victims of the ninth month, eleventh day, the year-

2-0-0-1

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

and just in case MR. Bushwhacker happens to read hypography posts

 

Of course he does! Where else would he get his daily dose of intelligence pills?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

The US gave $43 million to the Taliban in the months before 9/11? I didn't know that... interesting point. What was the administration's reason/excuse for doing so? Did they give one?

It is very telling that you have attacked me for not correcting EVERY ONE of the lies you had cut and pasted here and yet you have shown that you don't really have any depth of factual knowledge on the topic. I am pleased to see this less confrontational, seemingly more just plain curious, approach. As I am nothing, if not interested in promoting FACTUAL INFORMATION, here are the details.

 

While it was the US that actually sourced and pushed the funds thru, which is why Colin Powell did the press release to claim credit, it was funnelled thru the UN. The excuse given was that the Taliban promised to destroy the Poppy crop. The Anti-Drug effort. Thus the funds were supposedly financial compensation for loss of revenue from the drug trade those poppies would represent. However the Afganies had actually just harvested and wharehoused the flowers. So killing the rest of the plant was meaningless. Except as PR to cover the attempt to buy favor with the Taliban to sign a contract for an oil pipeline thru Afganastan.

 

Next I have to wonder if you have seen the movie of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam in a "photo op" as we were doing biz with Iraq to supply the chemicals used by Saddam for him to "gas his own people".?

 

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:

The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/</a>

 

Further, you may not be aware that Saddam had been a CIA "Asset" since 1959. YOu can watch a cute little flash movie that documents it at:

 

Thanks for the Memories

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

">http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

</a>

 

Check out some of the other Flash movies at that site!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Originally posted by: wisdumn

and just in case MR. Bushwhacker happens to read hypography posts

Of course he does! Where else would he get his daily dose of intelligence pills?

Tormod, I thought you paid more attention then that. Bush doesn't READ anything. Not even the one page capsule of things that are critical to the US Presidency every day. Such as the one on August 6, 2001, entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US".

 

So while I am sure that the Bush admin is aware of your anti-American web site, Bush does not read it. He has his babysitter read small parts, ones with small words, to him.

[wisdumn]

at least we all agree bush must hit the door in ' 04

[Morpheus]

Hey Freethinker, the two links you posted don't seem to be working.Could you getanother URL for that "Saddam CIA Asset" one?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Morpheus

Hey Freethinker, the two links you posted don't seem to be working. Could you get another URL for that "Saddam CIA Asset" one?

 

It has to do with the way Hypography parses URL's for some reason it added stuff to the end. The URL as displayed is correct. But when you click on iit, the URL you are sent to is not the one displyed. Perhaps if I post it without the whole http stuff?

 

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

 

What you get when you click, is:

 

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html%3CBR%3E

 

Don't know that the

 

%3CBR%3E

 

is for!

[Freethinker]

We just passed the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. We find ourselves in a more dangerous world than that that existed on that fateful day. Billons of dollars and thousand of lives wasted because of a totally incorrect response to an overblown event. I have no desire to minimalize the events of that day. Any time that many people die in a singular event it is an attrocity. But it would be a far greater response to work to resolve the situation in a positive fashion rather than the military chicken hawk corporate profiting money and power grab efforts of the current Resident of the White House.

 

Now using fear and hatred generated by that event, the same money grubbing group running the US is trying to milk it in an effort to scare US voters into actually electing them this time. False and misleading usage of danger levels timed to keep much more critical issues from gaining traction has become one of the tools of an administration which bases it's existence on lies and aimless policies. Aimless other than to increase the strength of the extremely wealthy and suppress the common people.

 

These people have no shame or morals. Yet close to half of the US population is buying into these lies. But can we blame them when their primary source of news comes from a very small number of media outlets controlled by that big money.

 

Yes we can. Each citizen in a Democratic society should be held personally responsible for efforts to determine what the facts are. Instead of taking the easy way out and blindly following the proven lies of that big business controlled political pundintry. The truth is out there. It is easy to find. No it is not what is being pushed out on the airwaves in rightwingnut talk radio or entertainment oriented "news" networks. Surveys have shown every time there is fact checking done, that these sources are if not simply misleading, outright lying.

 

Is there a reason the term "great unwashed masses" fits so well? Is it too much to expect the majority of humans to bother putting effort into helping humanity? Is it too much to hope people wil start caring about people instead of profit and personal comfort? Will we see the US elect a maniac with a well established record of destroying the economy, environment and worldwide efforts to bring humanity together? Will we see the continued destruction of our world or will we see an awakening of the individual to our current reality.

[Freethinker]

While there is little reason to accept that had Al Gore been elected, the 9/11 terrorist attack would never have happened, that is not the biggest cost of life Bush will be responsible for regarding this tragedy.

 

In an official report it is now known that deaths resulting from 9/11 will be over ONE HUNDRED TIMES higher than the official figures given for actual deaths on that date. We now find that an estimated 250,000 to 400,000 people will die because of intentional lies from the White House concerning air quality immediately after 9/11 which continues today.

 

Cate Jenkins, comments on the EPA Office of Inspector General's 1/27/03 interim report titled: "EPA's Response to the World Trade Center Towers Collapse". Jenkins is a 24-year specialist with the EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Division. She said today: "On July 15, 2004, I provided the EPA Inspector General with the first documentation that EPA had actually concealed hazardous air data after 9/11. EPA explicitly stated in a series of press releases that tests for asbestos were below a certain specific level, while at the same time having in their possession tests from New York City showing asbestos above this level. EPA only referred to their own tests, which were questionable to begin with. Yet, EPA had in its possession at the time other data from New York City showing just the opposite, and concealed it from the public. New York City also concealed its data. When New York City finally released the data in 2002, it altered the results in many cases to show lower, non-hazardous levels. This deliberate concealment raises the liability of EPA and New York City from the mere misrepresentation of hazards, to the level of a deliberate, knowing falsification and disregard for public safety. EPA and New York City can no longer hide behind their 'sovereign immunity' defense in litigation brought by those now and in the future suffering permanent disability after the World Trade Center collapse, the living victims of 9/11."

 

While it was horrible that 3,000 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11, that is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands the Bush administration has been and are killing because of their lies and lack of action.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

While it was horrible that 3,000 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11, that is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands the Bush administration has been and are killing because of their lies and lack of action.

 

I just wonder...why? Do you have any plausible explanation for it? Where can I read more about this?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Originally posted by: Freethinker

While it was horrible that 3,000 people were killed by terrorists on 9/11, that is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands the Bush administration has been and are killing because of their lies and lack of action.

I just wonder...why? Do you have any plausible explanation for it? Where can I read more about this?

The WHY is simple. The Bush admin is nothing but corporate greed armed with pathological lying. It would have been too expensive to have to outfit all of the rescue workers with proper gear. These people are working class and thus expendable. In the ideology of the Republican's, "personal ownership", if the workers don;t bother to protect themsleves, that's their own fault. Let them die from their own stupidity! That is the Bush agenda. That is why US soldiers families have to hold bake sales to buy helmets and vests for them.

 

Plus all of the surrounding landlords and employers didn;t want their employees not showing up as soon as possible afterwards. Haing to dress in environmental protection outfits would ahve slowed that down dramatically. There are airborne environmental hazzards in the area yet today. 3 years later. Yet the info is still being suppressed.

 

Here are just a couple of the many News sources now starting to cover it.

 

The Star-Ledger

9/11 workers' suit claims toxic exposure

800 say they are ill because city and others failed to guard them

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1095138863150430.xml

">http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1095138863150430.xml

</a>

 

First Major Class Action Lawsuit Filed For Ground Zero Cleanup Workers Afflicted With 'WTC Toxic Diseases'

 

NEW YORK, Sept. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Worby, Groner, Edelman, & Napoli, Bern, LLP announced today the September 10th filing of the first major class action lawsuit on behalf of Ground Zero cleanup workers and others against managers, owners, controllers and leasors of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex. The unprecedented combination of lethal toxins present at the World Trade Center site during search and rescue, demolition and cleanup efforts in the months following September 11, 2001 affected not only the cleanup workers but potentially hundreds of thousands of people living and working in the area with "WTC Toxic Diseases".

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040913/nym116_1.html

">http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040913/nym116_1.html

</a>

 

A presidential potpourri of cuts, blunders, stonewalls, deceptions, and distractions

The 10 Ways Bush Screwed New York

 

7 What could be worse than lying to GZ workers and residents about the air they were breathing? The original EPA draft of a September 13, 2001, press release, for example, said that the agency considered even the low levels of asbestos that surfaced in their GZ tests "hazardous in this situation." The final White House version of the release simply scratched out the phrase. And when a September 16 EPA draft warned of "higher levels of asbestos," the White House changed it to the hot-air hoax that "ambient air quality meets standards and is not a cause for public concern." The EPA chief of staff conceded in an interview with the agency's inspector general that the "desire to reopen Wall Street" factored into the releases, saying she did not feel the releases were her own.

 

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0434/barrett.php

">http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0434/barrett.php

</a>

 

Air Pollution (and Deception) at Ground Zero

How Our Government Allowed Hundreds of Civilians to Breathe Contaminated Air After 9/11

...

Lesser K

[Freethinker]

Bush an INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMINAL!

 

From the UN web site!

 

"ANNAN HAS SAID IRAQ WAR NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH U.N. CHARTER

 

Asked whether his Wednesday interview with the BBC was the first time the Secretary-General has called the war in Iraq “illegal,” the Spokesman said he has repeatedly said that war was “not in conformity with the Charter.” One of the purposes of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change was to look at the issue of preventive war and to see how it could be employed in conformity with the Charter, which does not allow pre-emptive attacks, he said.

 

On March 10, 2003, the Secretary-General said at a press conference in The Hague, “If the U.S. and others were to go outside the Council and take military action it would not be in conformity with the Charter.”

 

On April 2, 2003, he was asked by Al-Jazeera, “Therefore, because you are saying that the Council did not endorse this war, would you condemn it?” The Secretary-General responded, “And that is why the legitimacy of this action has been questioned, and widely questioned, and I myself have raised questions about it. I have raised questions about the legitimacy and whether it was in conformity with the Charter.”

 

On March 8, 2004, the Secretary-General had a meeting with Arab journalists and said, “I myself indicated that a war would not be in conformity with the Charter and the credibility of any such action would be widely questioned and the legitimacy would be widely questioned. And this is what has happened.”

 

The conformity with the Charter language has been his consistent position. The Spokesman said that the BBC interview shows that the Secretary-General was quite reluctant to use the word “illegal,” but after repeated pressure from the interviewer about whether the war was illegal, he said, “Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, and from the Charter point of view,<u> it was illegal</u>.”

 

This position has been his consistent one for more than a year, the Spokesman said, and has been well known to Member States. “We see nothing new in it,” he said."

 

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=121

[Freethinker]

Saudi Arabia - G Bush's financiers and closest friends, once more benefit from their direct connection to the White House.

 

"Yaser E. Hamdi, an American citizen captured in Afghanistan and once deemed so dangerous that the American military held him incommunicado for more than two years as an enemy combatant, will be freed and allowed to return to Saudi Arabia in the next few days, officials said Wednesday... "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/politics/23hamdi.html

 

While this would appear to be another set back to the White House claims of making the US safer, is there little wonder that if it was going to happen, it would be a Saudi that would benefit? Of the thousands the Bush admin has arranged to be taken without Probable Cause and held without our Constitutional Protections, we find that one of the few that actually has a record as a Taliban active supporter is the one that gets off with less than a slap on the wrists because the Saudi's asked their buddy George.

 

Remember, of the 19 terrorists that hijacked planes on 9/11, 15 were Saudies. And SA was the primary funding source for Al Quida. So naturally when we mounted an effort to retaliate for this attack on the US, we went straight to the source... IRAQ! ?????

 

Meanwhile, the US military has been thrown out of 5 major areas of Iraq, which have become Theocratic Islamic terrritory. We have less control over Iraq now than we did when we were told by Fly Boy George (who refused to serve out his time as Reserve Pilot because of a coke habit):

 

<center>MISSION ACCOMPLISHED</center>

 

While the supposed "Coalition of the willing" is continually shrinking. Some countries that have not provided the first penny of support nor personnel while on this list, are now insisting that their name be removed!

 

As Jon Steward (The Daily Show) said. The US has gone from the most respected nation in the world to the equivalent of unwanted telemarketers. "Take us off your call list"!

[Freethinker]

And now direct LIES by George about the situation in Iraq.

 

OK MORE NEW LIES.

 

The Whitehouse appointee we claim is the Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and George are making claims regarding how large of a force the Iraqi's have for self protection. Ayad Allawi claimed he "commands almost 50,000 armed and combat-ready Iraqis." To which Idiot Child added that if police are added to the number, there are nearly 100,000 "fully trained and equipped" Iraqi soldiers, police and other security forces. Allawi agreed.

 

But from:

 

Experts doubt Iraq prime minister's military report

By Timothy M. Phelps

Newsday

 

"In reality, according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies here, Allawi has at his disposal a "core force" of only six army battalions -- just 4,200 men. The rest are as yet untrained, in other branches or otherwise not available to fight the enduring insurgency on the ground.

 

While Iraq claims more than 100,000 police and other security personnel, nearly half have no training at all and the majority have no weapons, vehicles or body armor necessary to work in Iraq, Cordesman said, in both cases citing Pentagon statistics. What's more, the police are also "deeply corrupt, horribly ineffective" and do not have the will to fight, said Cordesman's colleague, Jon Alterman."

 

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/09/24/news/world/8b62e37a55dd69fd87256f1900033bf6.prt

 

So we find in Iraq that more than 5 major cities and areas are no longer in US control, our soldiers are not even in them. And we have not had custody of Saddam for months as he is now back in Iraqi hands. And further, if things contune as they are, Saddam could literally be back in power next year!

 

ALL would be wasted. Over 1,000 of our soldiers dead, tens of thousands of our troops wounded. Hundreds of billions of our tax dollars wasted and Iraq is a terrorist haven where it held NONE before that. The US and the world are less safe. Al Quida has more members, money and weapons than ever.

 

And half the US population is so ignorant they are willing to vote for Bush again. Perhaps this time actually electing him to office!